9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as apparent on the record. - Further in view of full bench decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Aruna Luthra (2001 (8) TMI 84 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court) the order of ITAT sustained - decided in favor of revenue. - ITA No. 42 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 5-9-2011 - MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel, for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 42 and 57 of 2004 filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 as according to learned counsel for the parties, identical questions of law are involved therein. For brevity, the facts ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... selling the same to Food Corporation of India (FCI). The income of the assessee arising from the same was exempt from tax under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act, as held by this Court in the assessee's own case in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. 182 ITR 59 following its own judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. HAFED 182 ITR 53. The appeal filed by the revenue bearing Civil Appeal No. 15430 of 1996 against the order of this Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 31.5.1998 while deciding the case of Kerala State Coop. Supply Marketing Federation Ltd. and others v. Commissioner of Income-tax 231 ITR 814 holding that the agricultural produce of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The point for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the order of the Tribunal dated 23.9.1998 could be rectified in view of retrospective amendment made by the Income Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1998 effective from 1.4.1968. 6. The Tribunal while rejecting the contention of the assessee, following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of J.M. Bhatia AAC and others v. J.M. Shah (1985) 156 ITR 474, held that the order dated 23.9.1998 could be rectified as there was mistake of law which was apparent on the record. The observation of the Tribunal reads thus:- There is no dispute in this case that in view of the retrospective amendment u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii), the assessee is not e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) and to that extent our orders in aforesaid ITAs stand amended. 7. Further, Full Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 was considering the scope of power given under Section 154 which is analogous to Section 254 of the Act for rectification of any mistake apparent on the record. It was held as under:- The power given to the authority is wide. It can correct any mistake provided it is apparent from the record . The first question that arises for consideration is when a mistake can be said to be apparent from the record? The plain language of the provision suggests that the mistake should be apparent. It must be patent. It must appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cannot be accepted. There is another aspect of the matter. In a given case, on an interpretation of a provision, an authority can take a view in favour of one of the parties. Subsequent to the order, the jurisdictional High Court or their Lordships of the Supreme Court interpret the same provision and take a contrary view. The apparent effect of the judgment interpreting the provision is that the view taken by the authority is rendered erroneous. It is not in conformity with the provision of the statute. Thus, there is a mistake. Should it still be perpetuated? If the contention raised on behalf of the assessee were accepted, the result would be that even though the order of the authority is contrary to the law declared by the highes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
